CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE ASSOCIATION V. UNION OF INDIA

ABSTRACT

The Supreme Court attempted to set a precedent in the case of Christian Medical College Vellore Association v. Union of India[1] by establishing that minority rights are safeguarded under the Constitution but not at the expense of national interest. In this landmark judgement, the Supreme Court upheld the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) for graduation and post-graduate programmes. In this case, the appeal involved four notices issued by the Medical Council of India (MCI) and the Dental Council of India. (DCI). The MCI made two statements within the authority granted to it by the Indian Medical Council Act of 1956. The last two notifications were published by DCI, which detailed the procedure for selecting candidates for the MBBS, BDS, and MDS programmes. The Supreme Court ruled that the NEET must be used for admission to private unregulated minority professional organisations for MBBS, MD, BDS, and MDS degrees, which is a landmark ruling.

INTRODUCTION

The decisions imposing NEET were made in Christian Medical College Vellore v. Union of India 1 challenged, with the NEET being overturned by judgment dated 07/18/2013. However, various appeals for review were filed against said judgment, which were granted on 04/11/2016 and the judgment of 07/18/2013 was reversed in Medical Council of India v. Christian Medical College, Vellore 2.[2] On April 28, 2016, an order was issued to Sankalp Charitable Trust and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors 3[3], clarifying that the previously issued recall order on the matter referred to does not affect the hearing of the petitions. On 05/06/2016 the court ruled that no exam for admission to MBBS or BDS programs may be held by private colleges or associations or private/alleged universities.

FACTS REGARDING THE CASE

12/21/2010: – The MCI issued two notices under powers conferred by Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act 1956 and amended Clause 5 of Chapter II of the Graduate Medical Education Act 1997 Regulations whereby the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) for admission to the MBBS has been introduced. Overall control of the NEETs rested with MCI. Similar changes were made to the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations 2000 for admission to post graduate medical courses.

05/24/2016: – The newly introduced Section 10D[4] of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 came into effect, providing for a joint national entrance examination for admission to undergraduate and postgraduate medical courses. This provision was intended to govern all such examinations regardless of judgments or orders of the court, apart from admission to undergraduate courses for the year 2016-17. Similarly, Section 10D was added to the Dentists Act 1948. Section 10D is extracted below:

2017: – Section 5 of Chapter II of the Graduate Medical Education Act 1997 Regulations was again amended by the Regulations on Graduate Medical Education (Amendment) 2017. The difference after the amendment was that overall oversight of NEETs was transferred from the MCI to the Government of India’s Department of Health and Family Welfare. And the designated authority to implement NEETs was the Central Board of Secondary Education or another organization appointed by the Ministry after consultation with MCI.

ISSUES REGARDING THE CASE

In this case, the court is only concerned with the question of whether the introduction of NEET as a uniform qualifying admission test for the MBBS, PG, BDS and MDS degree programs violates the provisions of Article 19[5], 25[6], 26[7], 29(1)[8] and 30[9]?

ARGUMENTS RAISED BY;

THE PETITIONER

That the notifications at issue result in a violation of an unsupported minority institution’s fundamental rights to establish and administer educational institutions of its choice, protected under Article 30 in conjunction with Articles 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution, including the right to admit students of its own choices. That the doctrine of limited government provides that a citizen’s liberty and autonomy constitute one of the chief tenets of the Constitution of India, which constitutes an inherent limitation on the involvement of the State in matters of student admissions. The NEET interferes with the right of an unsupported minority institution to establish and manage an educational institution of its own choosing by not prescribing other alternative remedies. That the state has no power to enforce admission through a common national entrance exam like NEET. Such an imposition would violate the fundamental right of the minority institution to accept students under Article 30. These have fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(g)[10] and 30(1) of the Constitution to administer the affairs of the institution. The restrictions imposed by the state violate the proportionality test. That if the approval process they have chosen passes the triple test of being fair, transparent, and non-exploitative, there can be no further state intervention that further restricts the approval process

THE RESPONDENT

That the challenged changes do not result in the unsupported minority institutions being deprived of their fundamental rights. The contested law was introduced with the aim of putting an end to widespread corruption and a lack of regulation in the country’s medical institutes. The main argument of this court for setting aside NEET in the case of Christian Medical College Vellore v. Union of India4, which was later invoked, was that a uniform common entrance examination could not be introduced by subsidiary legislation and under the 1956 Act and MCI none Authorization to carry out said test. However, after the introduction of Section 10D, both limitations were removed, making NEET constitutionally valid.

JUDGEMENT

By the judgment of this case, C.M.C. v. the Government of India, the Court has stated that the national interest takes precedence over the fundamental rights to establish educational institutions for minorities. In that crucial ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) would be introduced into the private unsupported minority colleges to screen candidates for MBBS, MD, B.D.S. and MDS courses. The court also reiterated the principles of protecting minority educational institutions under Article 30 of the Indian Constitution. It said there was no violation of fundamental rights. In a 108-long judgment, the court maintained certain points that the petitioners contested during their arguments. According to the petitioner, the NEET announcement violated the fundamental rights of the institution of an unsupported minority that protects the Indian Constitution under Article 30. To answer this question, the Chamber referred to a decision by the T.M.A Pai Foundation of eleven judges[11]. The judgment found that the right to establish and administer minority institutions is protected by Article 30(1). This cannot be used to override the national interest or to prevent the government from acting in this regard. Any law enacted with national interests in mind must be applied to all educational institutions, regardless of whether they are administered by the minority.

CONCLUSION The Medical Council of India, Dental Council of India and Central Government have followed the systematic admissions process in medical colleges in our country. They decide to make a breakthrough by conducting entrance exams in all countries, even in minority educational institutions. As we see, NEET is an exam that fulfils the desires of students who aspire to connect with the profession of medical science. This desire becomes easy as candidates only must present at this one exam and based on the NEET result. If the candidate proves suitable based on the result of this exam, he can choose anywhere in the country. The candidate is given the opportunity to pursue medical education if they are willing to go elsewhere. This system will provide every citizen with a proper opportunity and does not violate any provision mentioned in the Constitution. This is done for the public good as all individuals have an equal opportunity to gain access to supported and unsupported medical colleges. With the Supreme Court declaring that through NEET it intends to remove evil from the system, even the Supreme Court is aware of the medical school frauds. We desperately needed that kind of judgment that would set a standard for all other disciplines to keep the opportunity for everyone. The Supreme Court declared that various grievances are throwing the system into a terrible shape, and with our judges.

This analysis is done by Kaynaat Rana, an intern under Legal Vidhiya

---

[1] (2014)2 SCC 305

[2] (2016)4 SCC 342

[3] WRIT PETITION NO. 261, 2016

[4] UNIFORM ENTRANCE EXAMINATION TO ALL MEDICAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AT UNDERGRADUATE AND POST GRADUATE LEVEL

[5] PROTECTION OF CERTAIN RIGHTS REGARDING FREEDOM OF SPEECH ETC

[6] FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE, PROFESSION, PRACTICE AND PROPOGATE RELIGION

[7] FREEDOM TO MANAGE RELIGIOUS AFFAIRS

[8] PROTECTION OF INTERESTS OF MINORITIES

[9] RIGHT OF MINORITIES TO ESTABLISH AND ADMINISTER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS

[10] TO PRACTICE ANY PROFESSION, OR TO CARRY ON ANY OCCUPATION, TRADE OR BUSINESS

[11] WRIT PETITION 317, 1993